Those of us who consistently oppose the American government's imperial
activities are tagged with labels, most of which are not meant as compliments.
The most common word used to describe us is 'isolationist,' though it
hardly describes anyone who believes that American citizens have every
right to trade with whomever they wish.

A term which I prefer to use is 'noninterventionist,' though its appeal
is academic -- it isn't likely to become a rallying cry for a political
movement. Still, it accurately captures what opponents of the state really
favor: the prohibition of US intervention into foreign affairs.

The popular label 'isolationist' persists, due to both President Clinton
and GOP leaders hurling it at each other's foreign policies. Though it
surely cannot be used to describe either Clinton or the Republican party,
it is an awkward fit for the noninterventionist. Uttering it evokes emotions
surrounding Word War II and the Holocaust. Since it has been cleverly
modified by statist historians to lump Old Right stalwarts like Robert
Taft with genuine pro-Nazi groups, it is not a label that many readily
accept.

Unfortunately, great American ideas are persistently called 'isolationism.'
This is an unfair way of discrediting opponents of wars, but still an
effective one. It is up to noninterventionist to reclaim these ideas by
redefining the label put on us.

Pat Buchanan's response to critics of his foreign policy and his largely
brilliant book, A Republic, Not An Empire, is eloquent:

"They call us 'isolationists.' Well, if they mean I intend to
isolate America from the bloody territorial and ethnic wars of the new
century, I plead guilty. It is the first duty of a statesman: to keep
his country out of wars that are not his country's quarrel."

Buchanan's newly-announced bid for the Reform party's presidential nomination
is a test case of public attitudes towards the re-emergence of noninterventionism
as a political force. As Michael Barone noted on a recent episode of The
McLaughlin Group, Buchanan refutes every aspect of US foreign policy since
World War II, a political act Barone admits is brave. But so far, most
mainstream commentators are slinging mud at this 'isolationist' presidential
hopeful.

New York developer and loose cannon Donald Trump has made himself into
a sort of point man on anti-Buchanan sentiment. Trump has actually called
Buchanan a "Hitler-lover," indicating that the perception of
'isolationist' as anti-Semitic or Nazi still exists.

Until the clouds lift over noninterventionist ideas, Americans will rarely
hear them in mainstream forums. Pat Buchanan, however flawed he is, is
doing a great service as he uses his prominence to advance old, sound
ideas. Whatever happens to his candidacy, he will have exposed millions
of Americans to ideas that had been deemed forbidden.

By directly confronting the connotation of 'isolationist,' noninterventionists
have already reclaimed the core of their movement. If they persist in
vocally redefining the term, it will have less impact as a charge against
them. Isolationist as an insult is likely to exist indefinitely, but as
its misuse diminishes its potency will wear away.

Eventually, what currently passes for informed debate on foreign policy
might change. In the meantime, interventionists are hard at work in keeping
the debate closed. Consider this ridiculous Hobson's choice, put forward
by Charles Krauthammer:

"Engagement that squanders American power and treasure on peacekeeping?
Or engagement that concentrates our finite resources on potential war
fighting in vital areas such as the Persian Gulf, the Korean peninsula
and the Taiwan Strait?"

What about just staying home, sir? After all, there is nothing shameful
about domestic life in a flourishing America -- life that would be much
more happy if the federal government would throw away the trappings of
empire.

Unfortunately, America will not be told of its other options as long
as realpolitik types like Krauthammer dominate public discourse. Messengers
of the possibilities that would exist for an America that disengaged from
foreign entanglements will continue to be assailed, as Pat Buchanan has
discovered. Other messengers will be too fearful to come forward, after
witnessing what has happened in the past.

We will be called 'isolationists.' We will be vilified. However, we must
always present the content of our ideas, no matter what everyone else
labels them.

Michael R. Allen is the founder and editor in chief of monthly politics
and culture journal SpinTech Magazine.